Coming Together: DGPT Launches United Series

[zontar]

Sure it´s a stupid argument. i get that.
But we need rules on who can play i which division, and to set those rules might not be that easy

And as a foreigner i must ask a stupid question.
To me it seem crazy to have different laws in different states, dont you have a "US law" that decides over ALL states? And why does this case fall under state law?

yes, it IS crazy. and crazy legislation on many issues state by state is most def NOT bringing this country together...

 

[biscoe]

Eh. The local organizing committee and the TD aren't the same thing, afaik. The LOC exists to make the bid, I think? Spring was named TD after the 2021 Worlds ended up with a fair amount of bad press for not quite meeting the standard of organization that people on tour had grown used to, IIRC. I might be wrong about the timing, but the reasoning is, I believe, correct.

They are pretty close to the same thing, particularly in the case of Smuggler's Notch where Spring runs everything disc golf. Worlds 23 was awarded in late fall 2021. That is the usual schedule. They don't award Majors to "TD tbd".

 

[HyooMac]

Sure it´s a stupid argument. i get that.
But we need rules on who can play i which division, and to set those rules might not be that easy

And as a foreigner i must ask a stupid question.
To me it seem crazy to have different laws in different states, dont you have a "US law" that decides over ALL states? And why does this case fall under state law?

Not a stupid question for a freigner (or most Americans) to ask.

For all 250 years of its exstence there has been a tension between States and the US Federal government. The source is that "we" started out as States, each with their own sovereign government, laws (and currencies).

After fighting for independecne against England (and with the help of France), it became more widely understoof that some things (like defending against foreign countries) were better done if the States worked together, and some years after the war, delegates from the States agreed on a single constitution that gave some powers to a Federal government (Thus, the "united States of America").

Importantly though, the Federal (now known as the U.S.) government was only given specific powers, and all others, not specifically called out, were "reserved" to the States. That has evolved over time as the central government has grown more powerful, but it's been a fight every time. For example, the US government did not intiially have a police power, or the power to tax citizens.

States reserve the right to make many laws - and naturally, they differ in some areas for a country stretches over 3000 miles and has so many citizens.

Hope this helps and didn't bore you

TLDR: the States were here first, and the US government came later.

 

[Jolt]

Not a stupid question for a freigner (or most Americans) to ask.

For all 250 years of its exstence there has been a tension between States and the US Federal government. The source is that "we" started out as States, each with their own sovereign government, laws (and currencies).

After fighting for independecne against England (and with the help of France), it became more widely understoof that some things (like defending against foreign countries) were better done if the States worked together, and some years after the war, delegates from the States agreed on a single constitution that gave some powers to a Federal government (Thus, the "united States of America").

Importantly though, the Federal (now known as the U.S.) government was only given specific powers, and all others, not specifically called out, were "reserved" to the States. That has evolved over time as the central government has grown more powerful, but it's been a fight every time. For example, the US government did not intiially have a police power, or the power to tax citizens.

States reserve the right to make many laws - and naturally, they differ in some areas for a country stretches over 3000 miles and has so many citizens.

Hope this helps and didn't bore you

TLDR: the States were here first, and the US government came later.

Thanks i kind of get that and knows a little about it, but on this topic if feel wierd that you have to go to court in every state, that must get ridiculously expensive
But if this ever goes to supreme court, that rouling would apply to all states?

Edit. bonus question, would NR be able to play the Euro tour?

 

[HyooMac]

The US Supreme Court tends to keep itself to Federal laws (the US Constitution) and to resolve disputes between States. But, as federal powers have increased over the last 100 years, more and more issues rise to the Supreme Court. The Court (and the Constitution and its amendments) have a special interest in issues that are "universal" regardless of which State someone lives in (like, the right to assemble and protest, to be free of government-sponsored religion, the right to vote...).

It's messy - but States tend to act as checks on the Feds, and vice-versa.

 

[biscoe]

Edit. bonus question, would NR be able to play the Euro tour?

Other than Sula (DGPT event) and European Open (Major) I believe so. They are all A Tiers as far as I know.

 

[Rastnav]

They are pretty close to the same thing, particularly in the case of Smuggler's Notch where Spring runs everything disc golf. Worlds 23 was awarded in late fall 2021. That is the usual schedule. They don't award Majors to "TD tbd".

OK, wasn't aware of, or at least didn't remember, Spring's close association with Smuggs.

I must be misremembering something, though. After the kerfuffle about various issues at worlds 2021, I have a distinct memory of DGPT being tagged to run some major or other tournament, and making Spring TD simply because the DGPT was developing institutional knowledge and a set of standards for setting up and running tournaments.

Am I completely misremembering that? I suppose I might be confusing USDGC live streaming coverage with that issue, but I thought something came out of the issue with Worlds.

 

[biscoe]

OK, wasn't aware of, or at least didn't remember, Spring's close association with Smuggs.

I must be misremembering something, though. After the kerfuffle about various issues at worlds 2021, I have a distinct memory of DGPT being tagged to run some major or other tournament, and making Spring TD simply because the DGPT was developing institutional knowledge and a set of standards for setting up and running tournaments.

Am I completely misremembering that? I suppose I might be confusing USDGC live streaming coverage with that issue, but I thought something came out of the issue with Worlds.

The PDGA killing the National Tour and handing the Elite Series off to DGPT would be the closest thing that comes to my mind. It did occur in 2021 as well. I don't know that any of that was precipitated by the Utah Worlds though. IMO it was inevitable that it would occur once DGPT had their feet under them.

 

[Dcinmd]

The PDGA killing the National Tour and handing the Elite Series off to DGPT would be the closest thing that comes to my mind. It did occur in 2021 as well. I don't know that any of that was precipitated by the Utah Worlds though. IMO it was inevitable that it would occur once DGPT had their feet under them.

There was the whole Brodie renting the driving range thing, and the multiple complaints that the PDGA was not providing a world championship level accommodations to the pro's as a result.

 

[biscoe]

There was the whole Brodie renting the driving range thing, and the multiple complaints that the PDGA was not providing a world championship level accommodations to the pro's as a result.

Right- there were more issues than that, I just don't know that the issues in Utah directly drove any of the changes which came afterwards.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Brycganus—if I follow your rant, you are bemoaning the lack of genuine science based analysis of transgender issues.

4. Yeah, science is a fucking mess in this country, so hopefully my post gave insight into that and why we have a lot of general issues, which you can imagine are only worse in transgendered studies (and jenb pointed out a very significant problem about duress/implicit coercion in many of those studies, too*).

I'm sorry, Brychanus, if this feels like I'm reading a lot between the lines, but there seems to be something unsaid in this chain of discussion, associated with your initial post:

Traditional "hard money" positions or "soft money" medical positions, did you know that there is a legitimate "pecking order" of hires and what counts as "legitimate science" in the United States? Diversity researchers (in any construal of the word) are still generally treated like second-class citizens (at best), because their work is often treated as derivative of the "real science." They're all just interested in moderating effects and not the "primary" findings, right? It couldn't possibly be that we only keep them around because it fulfills a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion quota, could it? Ever notice that the people studying transgender topics are usually "instructor" or "adjunct" or other positions? That Universispeak for "you and what you do aren't important to us to keep around more than a year or three at a time like the real faculty, so we'll pander to you in the meantime. I'm really not being hyperbolic, nor am I really taking a stance on that in this moment.

[edit: removed a paragraph. I rewrote this a few times, and after submitting realized this paragraph just wasn't associated with what I wound up saying, it was focused on the ties of hard/soft money phrasing to hard/soft science assumptions.]

TxMxers response indicated that he interpreted your statements as you bemoaning "the lack of genuine science based analysis of transgender issues" but from my perspective - that wasn't what you were doing at all, as much as you were bemoaning the fact that research institutions often don't give real opportunities for long-term research to people performing analysis of measurement in social sciences.

You weren't saying that their research outcomes weren't genuine or legitimate, just that the researchers are being treated like second class citizens, and it is influencing the track of their research. A research design for a three-year grant is going to be much different than a design for a five-year grant. And a design for any grant where you can be comfortable that you will get your next grant approved will look even more different.

There is plenty of work on the social side of transgender issues that is genuine and the outcomes, assuming it passes the sniff test when we get into the weeds of the methods, can be taken as legitimate science with predictive capability. And it'd be even better if institutions gave researchers a better opportunity to design research we trust will be funded for long term evaluation.

*One of my favorite topics in all of science, ethics, and philosophy is relevant here: When is "informed consent" really informed, and really consent? Is there even answer to that question? Don't worry, there are hundreds of pages of arguments and studies on that, too.

The grant-funded program that employs me teaches preK-3rd grade teachers how to teach the rudimentary basics of science/engineering - and, having put together an IRB for gaining student assent (along with teacher and guardian consent) it seems to me that the institutional answer to this is to just go (rightfully) as over-the-top as possible.

Not so much an answer, regarding where that line is, but that seems to be how our HRPP people deal with the question.

 

[BrotherDave]

Sure it´s a stupid argument. i get that.
But we need rules on who can play i which division, and to set those rules might not be that easy

And as a foreigner i must ask a stupid question.
To me it seem crazy to have different laws in different states, dont you have a "US law" that decides over ALL states? And why does this case fall under state law?

That's because the Reconstruction amendments completely made backwards the way the country was originally set up. If our laws seem like one big game of Calvinball, that's why. I'll answer you specifically in PMs if you'd like.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I'll answer you specifically in PMs if you'd like.

Lines like this are how you can tell you'll be getting the MOST INTERESTING information.

 

[Skamanda]

I dunno, I kinda liked the Calvinball reference...

 

[Brychanus]

I'm sorry, Brychanus, if this feels like I'm reading a lot between the lines, but there seems to be something unsaid in this chain of discussion, associated with your initial post:

[edit: removed a paragraph. I rewrote this a few times, and after submitting realized this paragraph just wasn't associated with what I wound up saying, it was focused on the ties of hard/soft money phrasing to hard/soft science assumptions.]

TxMxers response indicated that he interpreted your statements as you bemoaning "the lack of genuine science based analysis of transgender issues" but from my perspective - that wasn't what you were doing at all, as much as you were bemoaning the fact that research institutions often don't give real opportunities for long-term research to people performing analysis of measurement in social sciences.

You weren't saying that their research outcomes weren't genuine or legitimate, just that the researchers are being treated like second class citizens, and it is influencing the track of their research. A research design for a three-year grant is going to be much different than a design for a five-year grant. And a design for any grant where you can be comfortable that you will get your next grant approved will look even more different.

There is plenty of work on the social side of transgender issues that is genuine and the outcomes, assuming it passes the sniff test when we get into the weeds of the methods, can be taken as legitimate science with predictive capability. And it'd be even better if institutions gave researchers a better opportunity to design research we trust will be funded for long term evaluation.

The grant-funded program that employs me teaches preK-3rd grade teachers how to teach the rudimentary basics of science/engineering - and, having put together an IRB for gaining student assent (along with teacher and guardian consent) it seems to me that the institutional answer to this is to just go (rightfully) as over-the-top as possible.

Not so much an answer, regarding where that line is, but that seems to be how our HRPP people deal with the question.

When I write post like that, I am genuinely trying to get people to think about the implications like the part that you are bringing up. And to have conversations.

I think you are taking away one key point. But I also think that TXM is on track that yes, sometimes the dynamics of modern science in practice really do lead to poor behavior. Often it is unconscious or well-intentioned. But sometimes (I personally think much more rarely, but it does happen) it is conscious and explicitly yoked to bad incentives in science. On the other hand, I still think science does more good than harm in the long run. The question for me is who gets hurt along the way.

I realized I want to boost the signal on one part of how the dynamics work in particular.

In general, I think that the issues of yoking salaries and science to paper units out and grant dollars in is one of the major challenges we have in how we practice science as a society. It would take a long time to share all the studies and arguments, so people are encouraged to think/look things up about the dilemmas***. The money dynamics have their pros and cons from a long-term perspective in terms of how much knowledge we gain in any area. Again, in general, we really do learn in that context (in my estimation). I just wish some aspects of it weren't so... weird and ugly.

I think your summary here is fair, but it made me realize I had an even stronger point. Within the modern university context is that researchers are treated like second class citizens from a structural perspective, and I would even be bold enough to say that is the case in general relative to the expansion of Administration (which I and others call "Big Admin"), which are generally also the highest paid people. Guess how many of their salary dollars come from grants they bring in? I won't be coy - it is exactly $0 in most cases. Guess how many of those salary dollars come from researchers like me who get the NIH or other agencies to sponsor "indirect" costs of running research? I actually cannot tell you because no one will really share the books, and they're complicated. There's a reason that NIH dollars are "preferred" by Big Admin at many major research universities. These are not my opinions. Much has been written about this escalation of Big Admin in universities. If you send kids to college, you should know that all of this is a nontrivial part of what you (or they) are paying for. I guess I am too if you count the grant dollars that I bring in. To be fair, many administrators are doing something that matters. But I assure you, many are not.

In that context, if researchers are second-class citizens, there are tiers of classes after that, with Adjuncts and Instructors being at the "bottom" (arguable depending on the institution's prestige, the students can be higher or lower than that depending on what Big Admin thinks you're bringing to the university. From there, you can imagine how transgendered studies are viewed in the traditional social dynamics and power hierarchies that still exist in research universities. Those dynamics are still very alive and well in many ways in our US universities. That has been well-studied, too. You should hear the stories I get from my non-white, non-male, non-Caucasian etc friends and colleagues.

From there, it is no surprise to me that not only do we not really know much at all about transgendered issues from a core scientific basis relative to what we could (like almost everything else), but we probably know even relatively less than we do in other areas of social or biological sciences. So my statement is not to generally say we know nothing, just that the deck is quite stacked against a sincere effort to dispassionately study it well in most contexts, much less the specific context this threat is about. That is why it really bothers me when people prop up their arguments on "science" without actually talking about science. That's also why I'm very interested in learning from different perspectives if they are in good faith, because I care about people. The clinical psychologist in me never really went away even though I mostly became something else. And it's important to acknowledge that these issues are much closer to home for some people than others.

Your grant-funded example says a lot using only a little. I hear you.

***By the way, I do think that people getting off their ass with a feeling that a fire that their bank accounts might dwindle can promote a form of progress. I just had a long day triaging issues on that front so I'm escaping for a few minutes to respond to you. Back to editing this mess of a paper.

 

[Skamanda]

 

[Brychanus]

I agree. My apologies.

 

[RFrance]

This was a good update for me.

 

[Skamanda]

Ah yes, the both sides ism is strong with that one...

Let me ask you all a question. I want you to understand that this isn't a hypothetical - this is the reality of the trans experience in disc golf right now...

As trans women, we all understand that we are being discriminated against. Whether state laws do or do not favor us in court, objectively, we are being treated differently than other women, in a way that excludes us specifically because of who we are, for something we didn't choose, and cannot change.

Having said that, my question is this: Why exactly should we be supportive of being told, "the new plan is part time discrimination", when that means we will still be discriminated against?

 

[denny ritner]

Ah yes, the both sides ism is strong with that one...

Let me ask you all a question. I want you to understand that this isn't a hypothetical - this is the reality of the trans experience in disc golf right now...

As trans women, we all understand that we are being discriminated against. Whether state laws do or do not favor us in court, objectively, we are being treated differently than other women, in a way that excludes us specifically because of who we are, for something we didn't choose, and cannot change.

Having said that, my question is this: Why exactly should we be supportive of being told, "the new plan is part time discrimination", when that means we will still be discriminated against?

The plan changed to better accommodate female disc golfers.